Family Systems Theory, Attachment Theory,
and Culture*
Family systems theory and attachment
theory have important similarities and
complementarities. Here we consider two
areas in which the theories converge: (a) in
family system theorists’ description of an
overly close, or “enmeshed,” mother-child
dyad, which attachment theorists concep-
tualize as the interaction of children’s am-
bivalent attachment and mothers’ preoc-
cupied attachment; (b) in family system
theorists’ description of the “pursuer-dis-
tance cycle” of marital conflict, which at-
tachment theorists conceptualize as the in-
teraction of preoccupied and dismissive
partners. We briefly review family systems
* We thank Ken Gergen for encouraging us to
extend our earlier work on culture and attachment
to the realm of family systems theory; Toshio Yam-
agishi for introducing the Japanese and American
co-authors to one another; and Kazuko Behrens,
Patricia Minuchin, and Betsy Wood for their thought-
ful comments about many issues raised in this article.
† Professor, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child
Development; Tufts University, 105 College Avenue,
Medford MA 02155; e-mail: fred.rothbaum@tufts.
edu.
‡ Professor, Department of Psychology, Boston
College, Chestnut Hill MA; e-mail: rosenk@bc.edu.
§ Professor, Center for Developmental Clinical
Psychology and Psychiatry, Nagoya University,
Nagoya, Japan; e-mail: p47302a@nucc.cc.nagoya.u.
ac.jp.

Professor, Department of Psychology, Ochano-
mizu University, Tokyo, Japan; e-mail: uchida@li.
ocha.ac.jp.
328
Family Process, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2002 © FPI, Inc.
FRED ROTHBAUM, Ph.D.†
KAREN ROSEN, Ph.D.‡
TATSUO UJIIE, Ph.D.§
NOBUKO UCHIDA, Ph.D.

theory evidence, and more extensively re-
view attachment theory evidence, pertain-
ing to these points of convergence. We also
review cross-cultural research, which
leads us to conclude that the dynamics
described in both theories reflect, in part,
Western ways of thinking and Western
patterns of relatedness. Evidence from Ja-
pan suggests that extremely close ties be-
tween mother and child are perceived as
adaptive, and are more common, and that
children experience less adverse effects
from such relationships than do children
in the West. Moreover, in Japan there is
less emphasis on the importance of the
exclusive spousal relationship, and less
need for the mother and father to find time
alone to rekindle romantic, intimate feel-
ings and to resolve conflicts by openly com-
municating their differences. Thus, the
“maladaptive” pattern frequently cited by
Western theorists of an extremely close
mother-child relationship, an unroman-
tic, conflictual marriage characterized by
little verbal communication and a periph-
eral, distant father, may function very dif-
ferently in other cultures. While we believe
that both theories will be greatly enriched
by their integration, we caution against
the application of either theory outside the
cultures in which they were developed.
Fam Proc 41:328 –350, 2002
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
T HERE are notable similarities be-
tween attachment theory and fam-
ily systems theory (Byng-Hall, 1999; Mar-
vin & Stewart, 1990; Minuchin, 1985;
Stevenson-Hinde, 1990). Some similari-
ties are at a broad, conceptual level, such
as the theories’ grounding in systems
thinking and their concerns about inti-
mate human relationships (e.g., what
draws people together, what drives them
apart, how they deal with conflicts, and
intergenerational transmission). Other
similarities are at a more specific level,
such as the correspondence between at-
tachment classifications of secure, ambiv-
alent, and avoidant relationships, on one
hand, and family systems categories of
adaptive, enmeshed, and disengaged rela-
tionships on the other (Byng-Hall, 1999;
Stevenson-Hinde, 1990).
There are also impressive differences
between the theories: (a) attachment the-
ory is focused on dynamics involving pro-
tection, care, and felt security, whereas
family systems theory is concerned with
family dynamics, involving structures,
roles, communication patterns, bound-
aries, and power relations; (b) attachment
theory is focused on the dyad, with much
of the action occurring within individuals
(e.g., “internal working models”), whereas
family systems theory is focused on the
triad, with much of the action occurring
within groups; (c) attachment theory is
relatively more concerned with children
and development, whereas family sys-
tems theory is relatively more concerned
with adults and current functioning; and
(d) attachment theory has historically re-
lied primarily on empirical research with
normal populations, whereas family sys-
tems theory relies primarily on case stud-
ies involving clinic populations. Interest-
ingly, theorists in both camps emphasize
the ways in which these differences in
orientation complement one another. The
differences are seen as mutually enrich-
ing, especially as attachment theory
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 329
moves toward consideration of myriad ex-
ternal forces beyond the dyad that influ-
ence the attachment system (Belsky,
1999b). Both the similarities in and dif-
ferences between the theories are seen as
contributing to their compatibility and,
ultimately, their integration (Byng-Hall,
1999; Marvin & Stewart, 1990; Minuchin,
1985; Stevenson-Hinde, 1990).
Our focus in this article is on cultural
factors that contribute to the rather re-
markable synchrony between these theo-
ries. We highlight ways in which both the-
ories are grounded in Western ideas and
experiences and how these contribute to
their compatibility. The term “Western” is
used here because of the variety of North
American and European cultures in
which the theories have been tested.
While there is a venerable tradition of
testing attachment theory in other cul-
tures (van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999), the
overwhelming majority of studies were
conducted in the West, particularly in the
US. It is our claim that the synchrony
between the theories reflects, in part,
Western investigators’ assumptions and
interpretations (i.e., the lens through
which behavior is viewed) as well as West-
ern ways of functioning (i.e., the incidence
and pattern of behavior per se). While a
cross-fertilization of the theories is
likely to enrich both of them, it is un-
wise to assume that the theories are
relevant to other cultures in which the
concepts have been infrequently tested.
Several other reviews have highlighted
the Western bias evident in prevailing
theories (e.g., Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Spence, 1985), including attach-
ment theory (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, &
Miyaki, 2000) and family systems the-
ory (Tamura & Lau, 1992), but this is
the first review to focus on topics central
to both theories.
Our goal is to consider the convergence
between attachment theorists and family
systems theorists with regard to two main
330 / FAMILY PROCESS
topics: (a) adaptive vs. dysfunctional early
mother-child relationships, which builds
on the family systems notion of enmeshed/
undifferentiated families (Minuchin, 1974)
and the attachment theory notion of sep-
aration disorder; and (b) adaptive vs.
dysfunctional marital relationships and
their role in mother-child relationships,
which builds on the family systems no-
tion of pursuer-distance relationships
(Fogarty, 1976; Minuchin & Nichols,
1993; Scarf, 1995) and the attachment
theory notion of insecure mate relation-
ships. Our goal is to point to some op-
portunities and pitfalls involved in a
cross-fertilization around these attach-
ment theory and family systems theory
notions. The particular issues we ad-
dress are not intended to represent all of
attachment theory nor all of family sys-
tems theory, but rather convergences
between the theories that also help illu-
minate cultural variation.
In the first section, case examples
from the family systems perspective il-
lustrate similarities between the theo-
ries. In the next two sections— on the
parent-child dyad and the marital dy-
ad—we review evidence from Western
research on attachment that sheds light
on dynamics highlighted by both theo-
ries. We focus on attachment theory be-
cause it is relatively less familiar to the
readership of this journal. We also re-
view evidence from studies comparing
Japan and the US. We attempt to show
that the similarities between attach-
ment theory and family systems theory
are due, in part, to the fact that both
theories are grounded in Western as-
sumptions about relationships. At the
end of the article, we summarize the
evidence, point to qualifications involv-
ing intracultural differences and inter-
cultural similarities, and examine im-
plications of the findings for culturally
sensitive approaches to family therapy.
POINTS OF CONVERGENCE:
CASE EXAMPLES
In this section we summarize points of
convergence between attachment theory
and family systems theory that we later
review in greater detail, and we provide
anecdotal evidence, largely from the fam-
ily systems theory perspective, regarding
these points. In the next two sections we
provide evidence from attachment theory
bearing on these points, and we consider
cultural evidence suggesting that the
links between the theories reflect West-
ern ideas and practices.
We highlight two main points of conver-
gence between the theories:
First, they both highlight the adaptive
risks involved in too-close mother-child
relationships. Among the pejorative la-
bels assigned to this kind of relationship
are overinvolved, enmeshed, undifferenti-
ated, overly dependent, and symbiotic.
Second, both theories consider the qual-
ity of the marital relationship to be key to
overall family functioning. According to
Marvin & Stewart, “Family therapists
tend to view the spouse dyad as the ‘core’
of the family” (1990, p. 81), and attach-
ment theorists’ consideration of family re-
lations is largely focused on the marital
dyad. What determines marital quality in
these theories is multifaceted, but centers
on romantic characteristics (e.g., Byng-
Hall, 1999; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999;
Christensen & Jacobson, 2000; Gottman,
1999; Marvin & Stewart, 1990). The qual-
ity of the marital relationship is seen as a
major determinant of the caregiving pro-
vided to the child, and thus of child func-
tioning. Attachment theorists provide
abundant evidence to support this con-
nection (Belsky, 1999b; Goldberg & East-
erbrooks, 1984; Isabella, 1994).
Family systems theorists often rely on
case histories to illustrate these dynam-
ics. For example, Jay Haley (1976) de-
scribes a phobic boy who was suffering
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
because of unresolved and unexpressed
conflicts between his parents. The par-
ents’ failure to preserve the boundary
around the marital dyad is depicted as a
contributor to the boy’s fear. Haley (1976,
p. 227) states: “The goal of treatment can
be put simply. It is to shift the relation-
ships in the family so that mother and
father are more intimately involved with
each other and the boy is disengaged from
them . . .”
Similarly, Byng-Hall (1999), an attach-
ment-oriented family systems theorist,
highlights ways in which unresolved mar-
ital problems disrupt attachment rela-
tionships. He describes a case in which a
mother’s pursuing leads to a father’s dis-
tancing, and vice versa, causing their son
to become entrapped in their maladaptive
interaction. Specifically, the son’s attach-
ment behavior is encouraged by the
mother because of her own unresolved at-
tachment needs. As the son seeks to use
the mother as a secure base from which to
explore, he is thwarted by her dependency
needs.
Family systems theorists believe that
the “enmeshed mother/disengaged father
syndrome” is common in dysfunctional
families (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998, p.
249). Minuchin and Nichols (1993, p. 121)
are explicit about the centrality of this
syndrome: “The signature arrangement of
the troubled middle class family [is when]
a mother’s closeness to her children sub-
stitut[es] for closeness in the marriage.”
In the next two sections we elaborate on
these dynamics and argue that important
elements of the preceding analysis are
grounded in Western thought. First, we
review theory and evidence regarding
“overinvolved” mother-child attachment
relationships in the West, as well as evi-
dence that such relationships are more
common, and are less likely to be seen as
dysfunctional, in Japan. Next, we review
theory and evidence regarding marital at-
tachments in the West and describe cul-
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 331
tural differences in what is considered
normative and desirable with regard to
these relationships. The evidence sug-
gests that patterns involving extremely
high levels of caregiving by wives, dis-
tancing by husbands, and lack of intimacy
in the marital relationship are more com-
mon, and are less likely to be seen as
maladaptive, in Japan than in the West.
“OVERINVOLVED” MOTHER-CHILD
RELATIONSHIPS
Evidence from Attachment Theory
In the following quote, Marvin and
Stewart (1990) describe “one of the most
common maladapted family structures”
that have been identified by family sys-
tems theorists:
. . . mother and (at least one) child are
overinvolved, or enmeshed (Minuchin, 1974).
This enmeshed relationship is usually char-
acterized by a number of the following: re-
ciprocally intrusive, controlling behavior on
the part of mother and child; much insecu-
rity and distress on the part of both over real
or threatened separation; treatment of the
child as if he or she were younger than is
actually the case; a strong tendency for one
or both to speak for the other and assume
knowledge of what the other is thinking and
feeling without “checking it out” (a really
palpable lack of psychological boundaries);
role reversals in attachment and caregiving
behaviors; an inability to resolve con-
flict . . . (and a) degree of intimacy with one
another inappropriate to their relative ages
and positions in the family. [p. 79].
Marvin and Stewart suggest that this
pattern of interaction—a primary concern
of family systems theorists—is related to
the insecure-resistant (also know as am-
bivalent)1 classification identified by at-
tachment theorists. Marvin and Stewart
(1990, p. 80) speculate that “these two
traditions (i.e., family systems and at-
tachment theory) are speaking of the
332 / FAMILY PROCESS
‘same’ child.” We agree with their specu-
lation and we point to several strands of
attachment research that dovetail neatly
with family systems theorists description
of mother-child overinvolved/enmeshed
relationships.
According to attachment theory, ambiv-
alent children are unable to use their
caregivers as a secure base to explore the
environment, are distressed upon separa-
tion from their caregivers, and, when re-
united, are likely to seek proximity or con-
tact but cannot be calmed by their care-
givers. (These behaviors are assessed
with the Strange Situation paradigm—an
unfamiliar situation in which the child is
repeatedly separated from and reunited
with the caregiver.) The corresponding
behavior in adulthood, referred to as pre-
occupied, is assessed via the Adult At-
tachment Interview, which asks about
past and present relationships with par-
ents. Preoccupied adults display excessive
and confused preoccupation with past at-
tachment relationships or experiences,
wander from topic to topic, or become em-
broiled in excessively lengthy descrip-
tions of relational problems. The inter-
viewee appears angry, passive, or fearful.
The memories aroused by the interview,
rather than the questions themselves, ap-
pear to guide the interviewee’s attention
and speech (Hesse, 1999).
There is substantial evidence in the
West of the consistency of these attach-
ment styles over time and circumstances,
and of the relationship of the child and
adult attachment styles to one another.
Meta-analytic findings indicate that pre-
occupied adults are likely to have a child
with an ambivalent attachment (van
IJzendoorn, 1995; van IJzendoorn &
Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997). The child
in these relationships is prone “. . . to re-
verse roles and provide the parent with
care, thus becoming indispensable [so as
to] assure the continuing presence of the
attachment figure. These strategies are
likely to maintain constant contact”
(Byng-Hall, 1999, p. 628). Below we re-
view evidence—regarding mothers of am-
bivalent children, mothers rated as pre-
occupied (on the Adult Attachment In-
terview) or ambivalent (based on self
reports),2 and ambivalent children—that
further supports Marvin and Stewart’s
speculation that these attachment styles
relate to overinvolved/enmeshed patterns
identified by family systems therapists.
When interviewed about their caregiv-
ing, mothers of ambivalently attached ba-
bies mentioned several behaviors that
were seen as contributing to their chil-
dren’s insecurity. These mothers “de-
scribed strategies to keep their children
close, . . . promoted dependency, . . . tend-
ed to overemphasize caregiving and to
overinterpret their children’s attachment
cues” (George & Solomon, 1999, pp. 661–
662). They emphasized their children’s
needs over their own to an extent that
was seen as unhealthy for both mother
and child.
Preoccupied mothers of toddlers have
difficulty separating from their toddlers
and separate in ways that are likely to
foster child anxiety while discouraging in-
dependence (evidence reviewed in Belsky,
1999a). Preoccupied mothers of adoles-
cents about to leave home convey doubts
about their children’s ability to function
autonomously (Kobak, Ferenz-Gilles, Ever-
hart, & Seabrook, 1994). Belsky (1999a)
speculates that, in addition to undermin-
ing autonomy, such behavior makes the
child susceptible to parental manipula-
tions. Preoccupied mothers are inappro-
priately responsive and overly attentive
to their children (Goldberg, Blokland,
Cayetano, & Benoit, 1998; Haft & Slade,
1989), are especially responsive to expres-
sions of fear (Belsky, 1999a; Haft & Slade,
1989), and in other “. . . ways interfere
with their children’s autonomy or explo-
ration” (Cassidy and Berlin, 1994, p. 981).
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
Several qualities of ambivalent chil-
dren contribute to their enmeshed rela-
tionships with their caregivers. These
children are especially demanding and/or
preoccupied about gaining and sustaining
attention from their caregivers (Belsky &
Cassidy, 1994; Kunce & Shaver, 1994);
they have trouble maintaining a bound-
ary between someone else’s distress and
their own (Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, &
Carlson, 1999); and they do everything
possible to prevent separation (Fraley &
Shaver, 1999). It is easy to understand
how caregivers become enmeshed with
these children. Even in infancy ambiva-
lent children are very fearful and their
fearfulness increases as they enter early
childhood—in contrast to other children
whose fearfulness wanes (Kochanska,
2001).
These findings regarding ambivalent-
preoccupied attachment dynamics have
important implications for family func-
tioning. We emphasize that these find-
ings have been obtained primarily in
Western cultures. Below we provide evi-
dence suggesting that behaviors Western
investigators typically associate with am-
bivalent and preoccupied attachment are
more common and have different mean-
ings (i.e., there are differences in the eval-
uation of overt behavior as well as in the
interpretation of its underlying affect and
motivation) in Japan than in the US.
Cultural Differences
Here we summarize research on par-
ent-child relations in Japan and the US
that points to differences in the types of
caregiving likely to foster security, and in
the consequences of security.
Sensitive caregiving: What constitutes
sensitive, responsive caregiving is likely
to reflect indigenous values and goals
(Carlson & Harwood, in press). In the
West, important criteria of sensitive care-
giving are that it is responsive to the
child’s signals and that it communicate
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 333
the adult’s availability while not inter-
fering with the child’s growing autonomy
or jeopardizing individuation from the
mother. By contrast, in Japan, an impor-
tant criterion of sensitive caregiving is
that it foster a symbiotic relationship be-
tween mother and child in which the
boundary between them is blurred. Japa-
nese mothers may appear overinvolved
and intrusive by US standards because
they are much more likely than US moth-
ers to anticipate infants’ needs and to
take proactive measures to minimize in-
fants’ distress rather than to delay their
response until the child gives a signal
(Clancy, 1986; Doi, 1973; Rothbaum,
Weisz, et al., 2000; Vogel, 1991).
Affective attunement in Japan, which
is much higher than in the US (Behrens,
1999), takes the form of mothers engaging
in simultaneous vocalizations with their
children, completing their children’ sen-
tences for them, and otherwise communi-
cating that they know what the child is
thinking (Behrens, 1999; Clancy, 1986;
Fernald & Morikawa, 1993). This behav-
ior is likely to be regarded as intrusive
and overly enmeshed in the US and, as
noted earlier, is likely to lead to insecure
(ambivalent) attachment. Other caregiv-
ing behaviors shown to foster ambivalent
attachment in the West that are more
accepted and practiced by Japanese moth-
ers are prolonged skin-to-skin contact
(“skinship”), co-sleeping, indulgence of de-
pendency, arranging work to become fully
devoted to the child, and encouraging the
child to focus on themselves (the mothers)
as opposed to the environment (Azuma,
Kashiwagi, & Hess, 1981; Lebra, 1994;
Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, et al., 2000).
Maternal sensitivity in the US is
largely intended to provide a secure base
that promotes the child’s exploration, as
well as encouraging the child’s assertion
of personal desires and autonomous ef-
forts to satisfy one’s own needs. By con-
trast, in Japan, sensitivity is largely in-
334 / FAMILY PROCESS
tended to avoid distress and to promote
infants’ interdependence and emotional
closeness with their mothers (Keller,
Voelker, & Zach, 1997; Rothbaum, Pott,
et al., 2000; Rothbaum, Weisz, et al.,
2000; Vogel, 1991).
The consequences of security: The dis-
similarity between Western and Japanese
ideas about consequences of security is
clearest with regard to independence. Ac-
cording to Weinfield et al. (1999, p. 77):
“Children with secure histories seem to
believe that, as was true in infancy, they
can get their needs met through their own
efforts and bids. In contrast, children
with anxious histories seem to believe
that . . . they must rely extensively on
others who may or may not meet their
needs.” There is substantial evidence in
the West that insecure as compared to
secure adults tend to be more needy of
others, as evidenced by greater clinginess
and dependence, anxiety about gaining
acceptance from others, preference for un-
qualified closeness, and experience of love
as involving union (Bartholomew &
Shaver, 1998; Feeney, 1999; Hazan &
Shaver, 1994).
Japanese theorists take a different
view. In Japan, dependence (i.e., interde-
pendence and amae), seeking of accep-
tance and commitment, and desire for
union are more common and more likely
to be associated with competence (Fiske,
Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998). The
path of relying on others, so often deval-
ued in the West, is more often favored and
is even prescribed in Japan (Azuma et al.,
1981; Lebra, 1994; Rothbaum, Pott, et al.,
2000). Dependence on others as a way of
meeting one’s needs, and coordinating
one’s needs with the needs of others, are
seen as essential to the goal of social har-
mony that is highly valued in Japan
(Kitayama, Markus, Masumoto, & Nor-
asakkunkit, 1997; Roland, 1989; Weisz,
Rothbaum, & Blackburn, 1984a,b). Inde-
pendence in the Western sense is deval-
ued: “From [an East Asian] perspective,
an assertive, autonomous . . . person is
immature and uncultivated” (Fiske et al.,
1998, p. 923).
Other qualities associated with security
of attachment in US children are emo-
tional openness and direct communica-
tion, especially in times of conflict (Bowlby,
1979; Bretherton, 1995; Cassidy, 1988;
Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). Explicit,
verbal sharing of emotions is less likely to
be seen as a desirable quality in Japan,
where parents preserve social harmony
by keeping hostile feelings to themselves,
by expressing those feelings indirectly,
and by encouraging their children to
do likewise (Lebra, 1994; Miyake &
Yamazaki, 1995; Rothbaum, Pott, et al.,
2000; Vogel, 1991). In Japan, people are
expected to respectfully and empatheti-
cally preserve harmony by avoiding any
expression of discord or direct expression
of wants (Rothbaum, Weisz, et al., 2000).
The notion that ambivalent attachment
functions similarly in Japan as in the US
is perhaps most challenged by differences
in the evaluation and interpretation of
behavior associated with children’s am-
bivalent attachment. There are many
similarities between Western investiga-
tors’ descriptions of children’s ambivalent
behaviors and child behaviors widely re-
garded as adaptive in Japan. These in-
clude: exaggerated cute and babyish be-
haviors (Main & Cassidy, 1988), extreme
expressions of need for care and atten-
tion, extensive clinging and proximity
seeking, helpless dependency (Cassidy &
Berlin, 1994), extreme passivity, blurring
of boundaries between self and other
(Weinfield et al., 1999) and failure to en-
gage in exploration (Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 1978). These features of
ambivalent attachment would not be seen
as abnormal or maladaptive in Japan, nor
as deriving from insensitive maternal be-
havior, nor as leading to later social in-
competence (Doi, 1973; Kondo-Ikemura &
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
Matsuoka, 1999; Lebra, 1994; Mizuta,
Zahn-Waxler, Cole, & Hiruma, 1996).3
In summary, the antecedents (sensitiv-
ity) and consequences (social competence)
of secure attachment and insecure-am-
bivalent attachment are viewed and
are manifested very differently in Japan
than in the West. Security in Japan arises
from extremely close and interdependent
mother-child interactions that, according
to Western theorists, promote insecure at-
tachment; moreover, behaviors associated
with ambivalent attachment, such as ex-
treme dependency, are more adaptive in
Japan than in the US. Mother-child en-
meshment, which is viewed as pathologi-
cal by both attachment and family sys-
tems theorists in the US, is viewed much
more positively by Japanese theorists.
MARITAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS:
TOO CLOSE, TOO FAR
In the last section we focused on the
mother-child attachment relationship; in
this section we focus on the marital at-
tachment relationship and the mother-
father-child triad. According to Marvin &
Stewart (1990), family therapists explain
the enmeshed family system as follows:
It is likely that the spouse dyad lacks an
adequate degree of intimacy and/or conflict
resolution strategies. The emotional dis-
tance between the spouses leads to resent-
ment between them and makes it difficult as
well to work together as parents. Mother
begins to experience her intimacy within her
relationship with the child rather than with
her husband/parenting partner, and father
focuses his energy on his job, hobbies, an-
other child, etc. [p. 81]
Research on partner attachments in
adulthood provides support for this por-
trait of marital relations. This research
examines the frequency, stability and na-
ture (e.g., intimacy, patterns of communi-
cation, and conflict) of pairings of part-
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 335
ners with various attachment classifica-
tions. We will focus on relationships
involving a female preoccupied partner
and a male dismissive partner because
that is one of the most common patterns
of insecure attachment. First, we briefly
review the attachment evidence and how
it meshes with family systems theory.
Next we discuss cultural differences that
lead us to believe that the attachment of
couples functions differently and has a dif-
ferent meaning in Japan. We suggest that
the larger family system, as well as the
spousal and parent-child relationships,
are likely to function somewhat differ-
ently in Japan, and that attachment and
family systems theorists’ interpretations
are much more relevant to the Western
experience.
Evidence from Attachment Theory
The marital dyad: There is considerable
evidence that adults with preoccupied at-
tachment styles tend to form romantic re-
lationships with partners who have dis-
missive attachment styles. (As noted ear-
lier, avoidant and dismissive refer to the
same category, as do preoccupied and am-
bivalent; see endnote 2). Findings indi-
cate that adults with avoidant attach-
ment tend to respond more favorably to,
and to be more involved with, those with
ambivalent attachment, and that rela-
tionships involving an ambivalent female
and an avoidant male are quite stable
although not very happy (Feeney, 1994;
Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994).
The central dynamic in pairings of pre-
occupied women and dismissive men is
what has been termed “too close, too far”
or pursuing-distancing. In general, preoc-
cupied adults desire extremely close and
intimate relations (Feeney, 1999) and
seek near, constant contact (Byng-Hall,
1999, p. 628), whereas dismissing adults
need to maintain distance (Feeney, 1999)
as seen in their unwillingness to engage
in romantic, affectionate, or other attach-
336 / FAMILY PROCESS
ment-related behaviors (Fraley, Davis, &
Shaver, 1998). As the preoccupied partner
escalates the appeal to have dependency
needs met, the dismissing partner in-
creases his defensive response of distanc-
ing, which leads to cycles of pursuer-dis-
tancer interaction (Fisher & Crandall,
1997). The more that the ambivalent
partner focuses on the partner’s lack of
accessibility, the more that the avoidant
partner restricts attention to the environ-
ment, and vice versa. In this way, the
pursuer-distancer cycle becomes an ongo-
ing feature of the relationship (Bar-
tholomew & Horwitz, 1991; Pistole, 1994).
One of the most outstanding features of
these couples is their propensity for con-
flict. The conflict often centers on the pre-
occupied partner’s expression of discon-
tent, deprivation, and abandonment, and
the dismissing partner’s tendency to at-
tribute the relational problems to the
partner’s discontent (Byng-Hall, 1999;
Feeney, 1999). Compared to secure adults,
ambivalent and avoidant adults use less
compromise and more defensive and
destructive conflict resolution strategies
(Gaines, Reis, Summers, et al., 1997; Pis-
tole, 1989). Ambivalent adults report high
levels of distress, hostility, and anxiety
when discussing problems; and avoidant
men engage in lower quality interaction
(Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). In-
terestingly, ambivalent adults had more
negative perceptions of their partners af-
ter important discussions regardless of
the quality of the discussion, suggesting
that they enter the discussions with en-
trenched negative expectations (Feeney,
1998).
The mother-father-child triad: What
are the effects of these marital conflicts on
child functioning and larger family dy-
namics? In a meta-analysis, Davies &
Cummings (1994) found that marital dis-
cord, more than marital distress or mari-
tal apathy, led to a variety of child adjust-
ment problems, and that overt conflict
had the most damaging effects. Recent
research indicates that parents’ nega-
tive conflict strategies predict children’s
negative representations of the mother-
father-child triad (Shamir, Du Rocher-
Schudlich, & Cummings, 2001).
Most findings regarding the association
between marital quality and parent-child
relationships (Erel & Burman, 1995) re-
port a direct relationship between the two
(i.e., negative marital relations are asso-
ciated with negative parent-child rela-
tions). A common interpretation of these
findings is that spouses in negative mar-
ital dyads satisfy their needs for closeness
via their children, and that the quality of
the parent-child relationship is generally
poor in such cases.
These findings are consistent with
those suggested by family-oriented at-
tachment theorists. According to Byng-
Hall (1999, p. 633):
Following pursuer-distancer escalations
between parents, one parent is likely to turn
to a child . . . A child’s mixed feelings about
the parents’ marriage— on the one hand,
wanting one parent to himself or herself; on
the other, wanting the parents to be to-
gether—means that the child will try to di-
vide the parents when they get too close and
unite them when they seem too far apart . . .
A variation on this pattern is a child who
‘captures’ a parent and excludes all others,
including the other parent; capturing is
maintained if it resolves the parent’s dis-
tance conflict.
Several studies (reviewed in Davies &
Cummings, 1994) indicate that children
of insecure marriages (the major form of
which is the ambivalent-avoidant pairing)
often take action in response to parental
disputes. These children comfort, defend,
or distract parents during conflicts, espe-
cially their mothers. Children’s misbe-
havior, intended to distract the parents, is
reinforced if the parents’ interrupt their
conflict with one another to attend to (e.g.,
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
discipline) the child, which may explain
the association between marital conflict
and child problems.
Research by family systems theorists
indicates that children of conflicting part-
ners may sometimes become ill or develop
an emotional problem so as to stabilize
the marital dyad by bringing the parents
together to look after the child (e.g.,
Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978). Re-
search by Marvin (1992) builds on these
findings from family systems theory. Mar-
vin found that, in a group of adolescents
suffering from psychogenic pain, one or
both of the parents were “preoccupied” by
threatened or real loss, and that their at-
tachment behavior was activated by the
child’s illness. Marvin developed an inter-
vention for these parents, the final “most
important” step of which was for them to
go out on a date together once a week.
This intervention was designed to disen-
tangle the marriage from the parent-child
relationship: i.e., to reverse the pattern
set up by the child’s symptom. At a
6-month followup, 90% of the children
were symptom free. These findings high-
light Western investigators’ concerns
about overinvolved parent-child ties and
their emphasis on the therapeutic value
of increased marital intimacy.
Cultural Differences
We believe that there are important
cultural differences in the patterns of
marital and family relationships de-
scribed above.
Preoccupied-dismissing relationships:
Instances in which the “. . . mother begins
to experience her intimacy within her re-
lationship with the child rather than with
her husband, and the father turns his en-
ergy to his job . . .” are viewed as mal-
adaptive if not pathological in the West
(Marvin & Stewart, 1990, p. 80). The com-
bination of “overinvolved” mother-child
ties and distance between spouses is
much more common in Japan, but it has a
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 337
different meaning and consequences be-
cause it is societally sanctioned. A com-
mon expression in Japan, “Teishu tassha
de rusu ga ii,” expresses mothers’ wish
that the father stay healthy and cheerful,
but away from the home. Though Japa-
nese mothers increasingly want hus-
bands to share household and childrear-
ing responsibilities, this phrase expresses
mothers’ adaptation to the demands of
their husbands’ work.
Many Japanese fathers continue to
spend long hours away from home. A
study of middle- to upper-middle-class fa-
thers indicated they spent 54 hours a
week at work not including many evening
and weekend hours, as contrasted with 42
hours in the US (Ishii-Kuntz, 1993). In
addition, more than twice as many Japa-
nese (37.4%) as U.S. (14.7%) fathers claim
they “never” engage in father-child inter-
action during weekdays—the correspond-
ing figures on weekends are 17.1% and
5.1% (reported in Ishii-Kuntz, 1993). The
Japanese fathers’ lack of guilt about their
limited interaction could be seen as fur-
ther indication of their dismissiveness;
yet, “they seem to think that their hard
work is appreciated by their family, and
therefore worth their absences from
home” (Ishii-Kuntz, 1993, p. 55). Paternal
distance is also a vehicle for maintaining
one’s role as an authority figure (Ishii-
Kuntz, 1993). Thus, fathers’ distance has
a very different and less negative mean-
ing in Japan than in the US.
There are several features of preoccu-
pied/ambivalent attachment that are
likely to have more aversive consequences
in the West than in Japan. Ambivalent
women are most likely to endorse items
such as “I can’t seem to stop from moth-
ering my partner too much” that are
viewed as compulsive caregiving and as
intrusive in the West (Kunce & Shaver,
1994). These women prefer unqualified
closeness, commitment, and affection, and
tend to idealize their partners (Feeney,
338 / FAMILY PROCESS
1999). No doubt this is why conflicts with
their romantic partners are so intense
and why they need to transfer their com-
pulsive caregiving and unqualified close-
ness to the infant. In Japan, where ro-
mance is expected to abate after marriage
and children (evidence reviewed below),
and where extremely close relationships
with infants are sanctioned, women with
behavior labeled preoccupied in the West
are likely to be better prepared for the
diminished closeness with their romantic
partners, and to find a socially sanctioned
outlet for their need for emotional and
physical closeness. These findings suggest
that behaviors labeled preoccupied and
dismissing in the West may be more com-
mon and less maladaptive in Japan.
Based on a review of Western studies,
Davies and Cummings (1994) propose
that child wellbeing is fostered when chil-
dren have a secure model of the parents’
relationship. That is, children’s security
may depend in part on parents’ attach-
ment to one another. Since distance be-
tween spouses is more accepted in Japan
than the US, Japanese children may view
such relationships as more secure, high-
lighting the complexity of the link be-
tween perceived security of parents’ rela-
tionship and child functioning. What
counts as a secure model of the parents’
relationship is likely to vary across cul-
ture. Moreover, in Japan, a secure model
of the parents’ relationship may be rela-
tively less important than a secure model
of the family relationship, which may in-
volve grandparents and even ancestors
(Klass, 2001), as well as the nuclear fam-
ily (cf. Marvin & Stewart’s, 1990, discus-
sion of the secure family base).
There are other reasons why Japanese
spouses who engage in behaviors labeled
preoccupied and dismissing in the West
may fare better than their Western coun-
terparts. First, in all cultures, preoccu-
pied and dismissing parents are unlikely
to experience verbally intimate, romantic
relationships, but the Japanese place less
value on such relationships. Second,
when behaviors associated with the pre-
occupied-dismissing spousal relationship
occur in Japan, they are less likely to be
accompanied by open conflict. Open con-
flict has very negative effects on the mar-
ital relationship (Gottman, 1991), and
highly deleterious effects on children (Da-
vies & Cummings, 1994). These points are
elaborated upon, below.
Romantic relationships: Here we re-
view evidence that secure adult relation-
ships in the West are based on very dif-
ferent characteristics than are secure
adult relationships in Japan.
In the West, marital relationships are
seen as secure when they are based on
romance, verbal intimacy, and sexuality.
Attachment theorists provide abundant
evidence linking security with romance in
adulthood. There is much more research
on attachment between sexual mates
than between any other adult partners
(e.g., same-sex friends or blood relatives).
The reason for this emphasis is clear:
“Bowlby claim[ed] . . . that sexual part-
ners assume the role of attachment fig-
ures in adult life,” and, in subsequent re-
search by other investigators, “the com-
mon practice [has been to use] romantic
relationships as the context for investi-
gating adult attachment phenomena”
(Hazan & Zeifman, 1999, p. 340).
In Japan, there is greater valuing of
close relationships that are based on har-
mony (i.e., mutual accommodation, ab-
sence of conflict, and enduring loyalty)
than on relationships based on romance,
verbal intimacy, and sexuality (Yama-
gishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Since romance
is difficult to sustain overtime (beyond a
few years), it is not particularly conducive
to enduring, committed, and guaranteed
relationships. While romantic relation-
ships before marriage are highly valued
in Japan as well as the US (Bando, 1992),
it is only in the US that romantic love
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
continues to bind mates even after mar-
riage and children (DeVos, 1985; Dion &
Dion, 1993; Iwao, 1993). In Japan, there
is less emphasis on romance after mar-
riage and children and more emphasis on
loyalty and commitment4 (Rothbaum,
Pott, et al., 2000). Whereas U.S. marital
partners continue to emphasize physical
attraction and eros, in Japanese mar-
riages romance is diluted by pragmatic
and dependency needs (reviewed in Roth-
baum, Pott, et al., 2000).
In Japan, mutual attraction, and other
needs of the dyad (e.g., for intimacy), are
not viewed as the most important criteria
for preserving a marriage. When asked
about a couple that wanted to get di-
vorced, 93% of Japanese, but only 39% of
Americans, said that the couple should
stay married just for the sake of the chil-
dren (Soumuchou, 1987). Even if they are
estranged, Japanese couples tend to stay
together in the same home for the sake of
the children (katei nai rikon refers to di-
vorce within the family home). In Japan,
stability of marital relations relates more
to complementarity in roles, successful
rearing of children, and participation in
wider kin ties and less to refueling pas-
sion (Imamura, 1987; Iwao, 1993; Vogel,
1996). According to Jing Hsu: “the core
relationship in the . . . Japanese family is
not that of the husband and wife, as in the
Caucasian families, but that between the
parent and the child” (Hsu, Tseng, Ashton,
et al., 1987, p. 357). The greater emphasis
on the mother-child dyad and lesser em-
phasis on the marital relationship in Ja-
pan than in the US makes behaviors as-
sociated with the preoccupied-dismissing
partnership less problematic in Japan.
Romance and parental roles: Clearly
defined role relationships contribute to
the loyalty and stability of mate relation-
ships in Japan. Traditionally, the wife’s
sphere has been inside the home, espe-
cially when children are young. As soon as
the first child is born, husbands and wives
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 339
refer to each other as otoosan (father) and
okaasan (mother), reflecting the primacy
of their parental roles. In Japan, wives’
and husbands’ roles and responsibilities
center on the family, including grandpar-
ents and ancestors as well as the child,
rather than centering on each other.
Western partners’ focus on their dyadic
relationship may explain why they expe-
rience so much marital distress shortly
after the birth of a child (reviewed in Bel-
sky & Rovine, 1990).
A study of marital partners conducted
by the Japanese Association of Sex Edu-
cation (1987) indicates that Americans,
more so than Japanese, attribute success-
ful marriages to factors having to do with
the dyad—i.e., partnership, intimacy, fi-
delity, sexual satisfaction, sharing of con-
cerns and activities, and romance. This
same study indicates a much greater per-
centage of American than Japanese part-
ners who report couple-related activities,
including recreation, going out together
as a couple, and sexual intercourse. The
difference between US and Japanese
adults mentioning “enjoyment between
the two” is a striking 70% (see Durrett,
Richards, Otaki, et al., 1986, for similar
findings). Taking the focus off the marital
dyad is likely to reduce the negative con-
sequences of a partnership that Western
investigators label preoccupied-dismis-
sive.
Family life in Japan has changed in
profound ways over the last 50 years, and
continues to undergo transformation. For
example, the Japanese Government has
become increasingly concerned with fa-
thers’ absence and has shown interest in
increasing men’s involvement with their
children (reported in Ishii-Kuntz, 1993);
and intimacy between marital partners is
more common. Yet, we believe that under-
lying patterns remain intact. While fa-
thers are more involved in care of children
than previously, adolescents in Japan
spend only a third as much time with
340 / FAMILY PROCESS
their fathers as American adolescents
(Sengoku, 1994). And while intimacy (sin-
mitsu) is more emphasized in Japan to-
day, the word is rarely used. A person who
feels intimacy toward another would be
unlikely to put the feeling into words; the
Japanese believe that if feelings are deep,
you do not need to put them into words.
Romance and its effect on the child: Be-
cause sexuality and romance are so cen-
tral to the marital dyad and are so inter-
twined with spouses’ attachment in the
West, it is not surprising that issues of
sexuality and romance tend to emerge in
other family relationships. This is seen,
for example, in child-parent attraction,
(i.e., oedipal and electra phenomena),
which appear to be relatively common in
the US (Watson & Getz, 1990). In Japan,
the family is less a locus of romantic re-
lationships. Lebra (1994), a Japanese psy-
chologist, notes that Western investiga-
tors are prone to mistakenly interpret
commonly occurring, close bodily contact
between Japanese parents and young
children (e.g., co-sleeping and co-bathing)
as having a sexual element to it. Simi-
larly, Allison (2000) describes a Japanese
TV show for children depicting maternal
breasts, which she notes are likely to be
viewed as sexual by American, but not by
Japanese, audiences.
The Japanese find the association be-
tween sexuality and maternal care diffi-
cult to comprehend because, for them, the
sexual and attachment systems are not
closely linked; the link is weak in the mar-
ital dyad (i.e., after children are born),
and it is irrelevant in other familial rela-
tionships. As a result, if children do be-
come triangulated by their parents, and a
too-close parent-child relationship devel-
ops, that relationship is unlikely to have
sexual overtones.
Romance and the wider social network:
The relatively lesser emphasis on the
marital dyad in Japan may be associated
with the relatively greater reliance on
same-gender friendships to obtain emo-
tional intimacy. Japanese mothers are
more likely to say they would consult with
friends (42%) than with husbands (18%)
when they have concerns about childrear-
ing (Hokkaido Private Kindergarten As-
sociation, 1997). While corresponding fig-
ures are not available from the US, they
are likely to differ because of the empha-
sis on maintaining the closeness of the
marital dyad (e.g., Gottman, 1999). The
wider network of supports available in
Japan may reduce pressure on the mari-
tal partnership and may render the neg-
ative consequences of marital distance
less severe than in the US (cf. McLoyd,
Harper, & Copeland, 2001, for a similar
point regarding ethnic minority families
in the US). For these reasons, behaviors
commonly associated with the preoccu-
pied-dismissive pattern may have differ-
ent implications for family dynamics and
child functioning in the two cultures.
Parental conflict: A major cultural dif-
ference in marital relationships is that, in
the West as compared to Japan, conflict is
far more common. Marvin and Stewart
(1990) assume that “there will be frequent
conflict within the family regarding how
proximity and contact will be organized”
(p. 365), and Byng-Hall (1999) suggests
that conflict among family members and
expression of anger is “a functional part of
family life” (p. 627). Attachment is seen as
providing a safe base for family members
to engage in conflict (Byng-Hall, 1999).
While Western authors believe that high
levels of conflict are dysfunctional, espe-
cially if the conflict is not resolved, mod-
erate levels that are resolved are consid-
ered benign or even adaptive. The belief
in the normality of conflict, which is
widely accepted by family systems theo-
rists (e.g., Nichols & Schwartz, 1998;
Satir, Stachowiak, & Taschman, 1975), is
supported by findings from Western stud-
ies— e.g., limited amounts of disagree-
ment and angry exchanges are not harm-
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
ful to relationships (cf. Gottman, 1999)
and, when conflicts are resolved, they are
not harmful to children (reviewed in Da-
vies & Cummings, 1994).
Open conflict in the family is much less
common in Japan, and even low levels of
conflict are less accepted. Ninety percent
of Japanese report arguing with spouses
less than once a month (Long, 1996). In
Japan, direct communication is avoided
because it leads to open conflict, which is
seen as unhealthy, even when it is not
extreme (Hsu et al., 1987; Rothbaum, Pott,
et al., 2000). “Because one of the ways of
maintaining group cohesiveness and har-
mony is to avoid open conflict, the clear
and straightforward statement of one’s
own opinions and feelings may risk con-
frontation and possible conflict, therefore,
less direct and perhaps even somewhat
evasive communication are more adaptive
in [East Asian] cultures” (Hsu et al., 1987,
p. 357).
CONCLUSION
Summary and Elaboration
There are important points of conver-
gence between attachment theory and
family systems theory, but some of the
dynamics about which they agree may op-
erate differently in non-Western cultures.
Attachment investigators’ description of
preoccupied mothers and ambivalent chil-
dren contribute in important ways to our
understanding of enmeshed mother-child
dyads—a major concern in the family sys-
tems literature. Attachment investiga-
tors’ research on partners with preoccu-
pied and dismissive styles provides evi-
dence of the kinds of pursuer-distancer
cycles and spousal conflicts that family
systems theorists have long considered
important elements in enmeshed rela-
tionships. Attachment theory has much to
tell us about the antecedents, stability,
and consequences of these attachment
styles, and about the underlying needs for
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 341
protection and care that characterize
mothers and children, and marital part-
ners, who are engaged in these patterns.
However, the evidence comparing Ja-
pan and the US indicates that many of
the behaviors associated with these inse-
cure attachment styles have different
meanings (i.e., evaluations and interpre-
tations) in the two countries. Japanese
mothers are expected to form extremely
close, even symbiotic relations with their
children; they value behavior that, by US
standards, is overinvolved, intrusive, and
overindulgent of dependency needs, and
that has been shown to foster insecure
(ambivalent) attachment in Western chil-
dren. Japanese children are expected to
exhibit extreme expressions of need for
care and attention, extensive clinging and
proximity seeking, helpless dependency,
passivity, blurring of boundaries between
self and other, and other behaviors asso-
ciated with ambivalent attachment in the
West. Despite this manifest similarity in
overt behavior, the underlying meaning of
the behavior is very different.
Similarly, spousal patterns of behavior
that are associated with insecure attach-
ment in the West, particularly the wife
who engages in compulsive, dependency-
fostering caregiving, and the workaholic
husband who spends little time at home,
are more common and are viewed as more
normative and healthy in Japan. Japa-
nese couples with this profile are less
likely to be dissatisfied with one another
because they are less focused on the mar-
ital dyad and more focused on the child
and family. Moreover, Japanese couples
are less likely to exhibit the kind of overt
conflict that is associated with these cou-
ples in the West; as a result, Japanese
children are less likely to experience the
problems common among children from
high-conflict families.
The larger point is that principles of
attachment and family systems that are
based on research in the West do not nec-
342 / FAMILY PROCESS
essarily apply in cultures with different
values and experiences. As noted above,
behaviors that in the West comprise a
maladaptive pattern known as enmesh-
ment, are seen as more normative and
more adaptive in Japan. The Japanese
phenomenon of ittaikan, which refers to
extremely close relationships character-
ized by an absence of boundary between
self and other, is seen as a sign of matu-
rity. The same phenomenon would be
seen as a sign of regression and would be
considered pathological in the West. Be-
haviors that are relatively rare and mal-
adaptive in one culture may be prevalent
and accepted in another culture, if those
behaviors are serving very different func-
tions in the two contexts. Behaviors are
embedded within a larger network of re-
lationships (extended family, community,
ancestors) and social institutions (educa-
tional, religious, economic, political, etc.)
that support a particular experience of
closeness.
Some attachment and family systems
theorists are sensitive to the cultural is-
sues we are emphasizing here. Byng-Hall
(1999) and Marvin and Stewart (1990) do
not make claims of universality and they
mention ways in which the phenomena
they describe might manifest themselves
differently in other cultures or subcul-
tures. They note that dynamics which
Western theorists typically attribute to
the marital couple could instead involve a
parent-grandparent dyad or the extended
family. As eloquently stated by Marvin &
Stewart (1990, pp. 63– 64): “attachment
caregiver relations exist within a network
of ordered relations and cannot fully be
understood except in that context.” Still,
the history of Western science indicates
that presumptions about universality are
common when evidence is gathered
within Western cultures, and when other
cultures are not examined (Berscheid,
1995; Bruner, 1990; Gergen, Gulerce,
Lock, & Misra, 1996; Markus and
Kitayama, 1991; Sampson, 1988; Spence,
1985; Weisz et al., 1984a,b).
This Western bias is evidenced by find-
ings that Japanese-American families are
evaluated as less competent and less
healthy than Caucasian families, even
when the evaluations are by Japanese-
American as well as Caucasian raters.
Hsu et al. (1987) found that Caucasians
are rated more favorably than Japanese
on a variety of measures including empa-
thy, expressiveness, invasiveness, clarity,
and closeness, as well as on overall
health-pathology. We believe that reli-
ance on Western-based assumptions about
what is normative and healthy contrib-
utes to biased interpretations in which
other cultures and ethnic groups are
likely to be evaluated negatively. Even
Japanese raters who are raised in the US
are prone to these biases, especially if
they rely on Western measures.
Qualifications
Throughout this article, we have em-
phasized cultural differences; yet, we are
equally concerned about intra-cultural
differences. Research comparing Chinese-
American and European Americans in
the US (Rothbaum, Morelli, Pott, & Liu-
Constant, 2000) indicates within-culture
differences that in important respects
parallel the cultural differences we high-
light here:
European-Americans’ practices and be-
liefs related to family relationships were
best organized by the theme of romance,
and Chinese-American practices and be-
liefs were best organized by the theme of
harmony. For example, European-Ameri-
cans parents were much more likely than
their Chinese-American counterparts to
emphasize spousal exclusivity and inti-
macy and to be permissive regarding nu-
dity and sexuality in their children. In-
tracultural differences in Japan also war-
rant examination: socioeconomic, rural-
urban, gender and age-related differences
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
are likely to provide valuable contrasts
(Azuma et al., 1981; Hendry, 1995; Iwao,
1993; White, 1993). For example, certain
stereotypes about Japanese mothers,
such as their unfailingly responsiveness
and warmth, may mask important cul-
tural variation in maternal acceptance vs.
rejection (Behrens, 2001).
Generational differences, especially in
Japan which is undergoing dramatic
Westernization, also warrant mention.
We suspect that, in 21st century Japan,
there are more negative feelings about
dependence and interdependence than
even 10 years ago, particularly in urban
areas. The Japanese Ministry of Educa-
tion now explicitly stresses the impor-
tance of children’s individuality, auton-
omy, and expressivity, in an intentional
effort to foster more Western ways of
thinking and behaving (Holloway, 1997).5
Despite our emphasis on cultural differ-
ences, we acknowledge that impressive
intercultural similarities have been docu-
mented by attachment investigators (van
IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999) and by re-
searchers interested in parental conflict
(Cummings & Davies, 2002). Beneath
the cultural differences that we have em-
phasized lie important similarities be-
tween Japan and the West in both attach-
ment and family systems dynamics. For
example, there are clinical reports that
Japanese children who suffer from school
phobia have family patterns like those de-
scribed in the West— extremely high lev-
els of mother-child closeness and avoid-
ance by fathers (Kameguchi & Murphy-
Shigematsu, 2001). While we believe that
this pattern is more common and more
adaptive in Japan than in the West, the
clinical reports suggest that, even in Ja-
pan, the most severe instances of this
family pattern may be associated with
problems that are similar to those it en-
genders in the West.
The dialectic of similarity and differ-
ence does not end there. Close examina-
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 343
tion of these similarities in family pat-
terns associated with school phobia leads
to the detection of yet other differences:
Japanese clinicians maintain that school
phobia is manifested by “good children
who want to go to school,” (Kameguchi &
Murphy-Shigematsu, 2001, p. 66), they
suggest that “mothers’ overinvolvement
in their children’s lives may be a way of
freeing the fathers to work,” (p. 67), and
they partially attribute the children’s re-
fusal to their natural desire to have their
dependency needs indulged by their
mothers—“a psychological concept re-
ferred to in Japanese as amae” (p. 67).
Western experts are less likely to explain
school refusal in these ways (indeed,
there is no exact counterpart to amae in
the West). This example highlights the
complex interplay between cultural dif-
ferences and commonalities: the search
for differences highlights underlying com-
monalities and the examination of those
commonalities highlights new differences.
Therapeutic Implications
The findings reviewed here suggest
that, when working with Japanese fami-
lies, therapists should: (a) not assume
that extremely close and/or dependent
mother-child relations are pathological or
sexualized, nor that the marital couple’s
failure to find time alone together weak-
ens the overall family, or is seen as a
problem by either partner; (b) be espe-
cially respectful of role-prescribed behav-
iors endorsed in the wider culture; and (c)
rely on nonverbal forms of communication
rather than require family members to be
verbally explicit.
To maximize his or her effectiveness,
the therapist working with Japanese fam-
ilies should not maintain the distant, per-
sonally disengaged stance demanded by
both Western science and Western psy-
chotherapy (Bankart, Koshikawa, Ne-
date, & Haruki, 1992; Roland, 1989).
Rather, the therapist should be willing to
344 / FAMILY PROCESS
forge a close relationship with family
members and to allow clients to assume
highly dependent and passive behavior
that would be regarded as counter thera-
peutic in the U.S. (Bankart et al., 1992;
Hsu et al., 1987; Roland, 1989). In addi-
tion, Japanese therapists may be most
effective when they recruit respected
members of the family members’ social
network to help resolve conflicts (cf. Hsu
et al., 1987). These and other differences
between best therapeutic practice with
US and Japanese families will become
more obvious as we further investigate
attachment dynamics and family systems
in Japan. We suspect, and other authors
have speculated (e.g., Hsu et al., 1987;
Rothbaum, Morelli, et al., 2000), that
many of the differences to which we are
alluding pertain to best practice with
other East Asian families as well.
ENDNOTES
1
Marvin and Stewart (1990) also link
these behaviors to the insecure con-
trolling category. However, they refer
to “one” classificatory group and, as
the evidence we review indicates,
most of these behaviors pertain to
the insecure ambivalent category.
2
The terms ambivalent and preoccupied
refer to fundamentally the same
adult attachment category, as do the
terms avoidant and dismissive. In
past research on adults, the terms
ambivalent and avoidant have typi-
cally been used when the attachment
classification is based on self-report
measures, and the terms preoccupied
and dismissive have typically been
used when the attachment classifi-
cation is based on the Adult At-
tachment Interview. When discussing
particular findings, our use of terms
is consistent with these differences
in methods. However, when referring
to adult attachment categories more
generally, we use the terms preoccu-
pied and dismissive.
3
We are not suggesting that most Japa-
nese are insecurely attached. Two
characteristics of insecure-ambiva-
lent subjects that are not at all com-
mon among Japanese are uncertainty
about caregivers’ availability because
of caregiver inconsistency, and diffi-
culty regulating negative affect. Our
point is that Japanese children and
children classified as insecure-ambiv-
alent in the US share several salient
qualities. Perhaps this is why many
Japanese are classified as ambiv-
alently attached (Miyake, Chen, &
Campos, 1985; Takahashi, 1990; but
see Durrett, Otaki, & Richards, 1984,
for findings more similar to those ob-
tained in the US). For a detailed dis-
cussion of Japanese-US differences in
the meaning and manifestation of at-
tachment behaviors, see Rothbaum,
Weisz, et al. (2000).
4
Interestingly, US dyadic relationships
are depicted as empty when they in-
clude commitment but not passion or
intimacy (Sternberg, 1986). By con-
trast, “Unconditional loyalty and
compassion is central to Japanese
morality just as love is central to US
morality” (Miyanaga, 1991). Compan-
ionable forms of love are more com-
mon in Japan— close, long-lasting
friendships characterized by endur-
ing commitment (Rothbaum, Pott, et
al., 2000). To the extent that ro-
mance is emphasized, it is more
viewed as a mental and physical va-
cation than as an expression of libidi-
nal impulses (Hendry, 1995; Lebra,
1994; Iwao, 1993). Saying that a
marital relationship is “like air”
(smooth, relaxed, and harmonious) is a
compliment in Japan (Iwao, 1993, p.
95). It is the familiarity and ease of the
relationship, not its novelty and pas-
sion, that sustains it (Iwao, 1993).
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
This is probably partly responsible for
the much lower divorce rate in Japan.
5
Yet it is important not to overstate the
generational differences. For exam-
ple, self-expression in present day Ja-
pan may mean different things than
in the US. Most Japanese parents
and educators who advocate self-ex-
pression seem to regard it as some-
thing the child should be able to do
when prompted by his teacher or
other adults, or in the peer context.
The Japanese view self-expression as
more a matter of clearly answering a
question rather than as spontaneously
expressing a personal feeling; even in
21st century Japan, the latter form of
self-expression is not often valued, es-
pecially in the presence of adults.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E.,
& Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation.
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates.
Allison, A. (2000). Permitted and prohibited
desires: Mothers, comics and censorship in
Japan. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Azuma, Kashiwagi, K., & Hess, R. (1981). The
influence of attitude and behavior upon the
child’s intellectual development. Tokyo: Uni-
versity of Tokyo Press.
Bando, M. (1992). Data bank of Japanese
women [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Ministry of Fi-
nance.
Bankart, P. Koshikawa, F., Nedate, K., & Ha-
ruki, Y. (1992). When West meets East: Con-
tributions of Eastern traditions to the future
of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy 29: 141–
149.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). At-
tachment styles among young adults: A test
of a four-category model. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 61: 226 –244.
Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P.R. (1998).
Methods of assessing adult attachment: Do
they change? (pp. 25– 45). In J.A. Simpson &
W.S. Rholes (eds.), Attachment theory and
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 345
close relationships. New York: Guilford
Press.
Behrens, K. (1999). Japanese and American
mother-child relationship: Comparison of
attuning behaviors during play. Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of California,
Berkeley.
Behrens, K. (2001). Working models of parent-
ing and parental efficacy: The case of Japa-
nese mothers. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California, Berkeley.
Belsky, J. (1999a). Modern evolutionary the-
ory and patterns of attachment (pp. 141–
161). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Belsky, J. (1999b). Interactional and contex-
tual determinants of attachment security
(pp. 249 –264). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-
search, and clinical applications. New York:
Guilford Press.
Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment:
Theory and evidence (pp. 372– 402). In M.
Rutter & D. Hay (eds.). Development
through life: A handbook for clinicians. Ox-
ford: Blackwell.
Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1990). Patterns of
marital change across the transition to par-
enthood. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily 52: 5–19.
Berscheid, E. (1995). Help wanted: A grand
theorist of interpersonal relationships, soci-
ologist or anthropologist preferred. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 12:
529 –533.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of
affectional bonds. London: Tavistock Publi-
cations.
Bretherton, I. (1995). A communication per-
spective on attachment relationships and in-
ternal working models (pp. 310 –329). In E.
Waters, B. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K. Kondo-
Ikemura (eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and
cognitive perspectives on secure-base behav-
ior and working models. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development
60 [Serial No. 244].
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Byng-Hall J. (1999). Family and couple ther-
346 / FAMILY PROCESS
apy: Toward greater security (pp. 625– 645).
In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.), Hand-
book of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications. New York: Guilford
Press.
Carlson, V., & Harwood, R. (in press). Attach-
ment, culture, and the caregiving system:
The cultural patterning of everyday experi-
ences among Anglo and Puerto Rican moth-
er-infant pairs. Infant Mental Health Jour-
nal.
Cassidy, J. (1988). Child-mother attachment
and the self in six-year-olds. Child Develop-
ment 59: 121–131.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of child’s ties
(pp. 3–20). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-
search, and clinical applications. New York:
Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure/
ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory
and research. Child Development 65: 971–
991.
Cassidy J., & Shaver, P.R. (eds.). (1999).
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Christensen, A., & Jacobson, N.S. (2000). Rec-
oncilable differences. New York: Guilford
Press.
Clancy, P.M. (1986). The acquisition of com-
municative style in Japanese (pp. 213–250).
In B.B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (eds.), Lan-
guage of socialization across cultures. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P.T. (2002). Ef-
fects of marital discord on children: Recent
advances and emerging themes in process-
oriented research. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines
43: 31– 63.
Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1994). Mar-
ital conflict and child adjustment: An emo-
tional security hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin 116: 387– 411.
DeVos, G. (1985). Dimensions of the self in
Japanese culture (pp. 141–184). In A.
Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. Hsu (eds.), Culture
and self: Asian and Western Perspectives.
New York: Tavistock Publications.
Dion, K.K., & Dion, K.L. (1993). Individualis-
tic and collectivistic perspectives on gender
and the cultural context of love and inti-
macy, Journal of Social Issues 49: 53– 69.
Durrett, M.E., Otaki, M., & Richards, P.
(1984). Attachment and the mother’s per-
ception of support from the father. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Development 7:
162–176.
Durrett, M.E., Richards, P., Otaki, M., Penne-
baker, J.W., & Nyquist, L. (1986). Mother’s
involvement with her infant and her percep-
tion of spousal support, Japan and America.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 48:
187–194.
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelated-
ness of marital relations and parent-child
relations: A meta-analytical review. Psycho-
logical Bulletin 118: 108 –132.
Feeney, J.A. (1994). Attachment style, com-
munication patterns, and satisfaction across
the life cycle of marriage. Personal Relation-
ships 2: 143–159.
Feeney, J.A. (1998). Adult attachment and re-
lationship-centered anxiety: Responses to
physical and emotional distancing (pp. 189 –
218). In J.A. Simpson & W.A., Rholes (eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships.
New York: Guilford Press.
Feeney, J.A. (1999). Adult romantic attach-
ment and couple relationships (pp.
355–377). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Fernald, A., & Morikawa, H. (1993). Common
themes and cultural variations in Japanese
and American mothers’ speech to infants.
Child Development 64: 637– 656.
Fisher, J.V., & Crandell, L.E. (1997). Complex
attachment: Patterns of relating in the cou-
ple. Sexual and Marital Therapy 12: 211–
224.
Fiske, A.P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., &
Nisbett, R.E., (1998). The cultural matrix of
social psychology (pp. 915–981). In D. Gil-
bert, S.T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol.
2). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fogarty, T.F. (1976). Marital crisis (pp. 325–
334). In P.J. Guerin (ed.), Family therapy:
Theory and practice. New York: Gardner
Press.
Gaines, S.O., Reis, H.T., Summers, S., Rus-
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
bult, C.E., Cox, C.L., Wexler, M.O.,
Marelich, W.D., & Kurland, G.J. (1997). Im-
pact of attachment style on reactions to ac-
commodative dilemmas in close relation-
ships. Personal Relationships 4: 93–113.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). The caregiv-
ing behavioral system (pp. 649 – 670). In J.
Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Gergen, K.J., Gulerce, A., Lock, A., & Misra,
G. (1996). Psychological science in cultural
context. American Psychologist 51: 496 –503.
Goldberg, S., Blokland, K., Cayetano, P., &
Benoit, D. (1998). Across the transmission
gap: Adult attachment and response to in-
fant emotion. Paper presented at the Water-
loo Conference on Child Development, Uni-
versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Goldberg, W.A., & Easterbrooks, M.A. (1984).
The role of marital quality in toddler devel-
opment. Developmental Psychology 20: 504 –
514.
Gottman, J.M. (1991). Predicting the longitu-
dinal course of marriages. Journal of Mari-
tal and Family Therapy 17: 3–7.
Gottman, J.M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A
scientifically-based marital therapy. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Haft, W.L., & Slade, A. (1989). Affect attun-
ement and maternal attachment: A pilot
study. Infant Mental Health Journal 10:
157–172.
Haley, J. (1976). Problem-solving therapy. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as
an organization framework for research on
close relationships. Psychological Inquiry 5:
1–23.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as
attachment: Evaluating the evidence (pp.
336 –354). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-
search, and clinical applications. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hendry, J. (1995). Understanding Japanese
society. London: Routledge.
Hesse, E. (1999). The adult attachment inter-
view: Historical and current perspectives
(pp. 395– 433). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(eds. Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 347
search, and clinical applications. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hokkaido Private Kindergarten Association
(1997). Unpublished survey. Hokkaido, Ja-
pan.
Holloway, S. (April, 1997). Images of close re-
lationships in Japanese Preschools. Paper
presented at the Society for Research in
Child Development, Washington DC.
Hsu, J., Tseng, W., Ashton, G., McDermott,
J.F., & Char, W. (1987). Symposium on cul-
tural aspects of family psychiatry. Interna-
tional Journal of Family Psychiatry 8: 349 –
361.
Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1993). Japanese fathers:
Work demands and family roles (pp. 45– 67).
In J.C. Hood (ed.), Men, work and family.
Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.
Imamura, A. (1987). Urban Japanese house-
wives. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Isabella, R. (1994). Origins of maternal role
satisfaction and its influence upon maternal
interactive behavior and infant-mother at-
tachment. Infant Behavior and Development
17: 181–187.
Iwao, S. (1993). The Japanese woman: Tradi-
tional image and changing reality. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Japanese Association of Sex Education (1987).
Kekkon wo meguru nichibei hikaku chousa
houkoku sho. [Report of cross-cultural com-
parison on marriage between Japan and the
United States of America.] Tokyo, Japan.
Kameguchi, K., & Murphy-Shigematsu, S.
(2001). Family psychology and family ther-
apy in Japan. American Psychologist 56:
65–70.
Keller, H., Voelker, S., & Zach, U. (1997). At-
tachment in cultural context. Newsletter: In-
ternational Society for the Study of Behav-
ioural Development 31: 1–3.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). At-
tachment style, gender, and relationship
stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 66: 502–
512.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Masumoto, H., &
Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and
collective processes in the construction of
the self: Self-enhancement in the United
States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal
348 / FAMILY PROCESS
of Personality and Social Psychology 72:
1245–1267.
Klass, D. (2001). Continuing bonds in the res-
olution of grief in Japan and North America.
American Behavioral Scientist 44: 742–763.
Kobak, R., Ferenz-Gilles, R., Everhart, E., &
Seabrook, L. (1994). Maternal attachment
strategies and emotion regulation with ado-
lescent offspring. Journal of Research on
Adolescence 4: 553–566.
Kochanska, G. (2001). Emotional development
in children with different attachment histo-
ries: The first three years. Child Develop-
ment 72: 474 – 490.
Kondo-Ikemura, R., & Matsuoka, Y. (1999,
April). The characteristics of attachment
styles in Japanese students. Paper pre-
sented at the biennial meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development, Albu-
querque NM.
Kunce, L., & Shaver, P. (1994). An attach-
ment-theoretical approach to caregiving in
romantic relationships (pp. 205–237). In K.
Bartholomew & D. Perlman (eds.), Attach-
ment processes in adulthood. London: Jes-
sica Kingsley.
Lebra, T.S. (1994). Mother and child in Japa-
nese socialization: A Japan-U.S. comparison
(pp. 259 –274). In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking
(eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child
development. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Long, S.O. (1996). Nurturing and femininity
(pp. 156 –176). In A.E. Imamura (ed.), Re-
imagining Japanese women. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of
response to reunion with the parent at age 6:
Predictable from infant attachment classifi-
cations and stable over a 1-month period.
Developmental Psychology 24: 1–12.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985).
Security in infancy, childhood, and adult-
hood: A move to the level of representation
(pp. 66 –104). In I. Bretherton & E. Waters
(eds.), Growing points of attachment theory
and research. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development 50: [1–2, Se-
rial No. 209].
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture
and the self: Implications for cognition, emo-
tion, and motivation. Psychological Review
98: 244 –253.
Marvin, R.S. (1992). Attachment- and family
systems-based intervention in developmen-
tal psychopathology. Development and Psy-
chopathology 4: 697–711.
Marvin, R.S., & Stewart, R.B. (1990). A family
systems framework for the study of attach-
ment (pp. 51– 86). In M.T. Greenberg, D.
Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (eds.), Attach-
ment in the preschool years. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
McLoyd, V.C., Harper, C.I., & Copeland, N.
(2001). Ethnic minority status, interparen-
tal conflict and child development (pp. 98 –
125). In J. Grych & F. Fincham (eds.). Inter-
parental conflict and child development.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual
development: Provocations from the field of
family therapy. Child Development 56: 289 –
302.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family ther-
apy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Nichols, M.P. (1993). Family
healing: Tales of hope and renewal from
family therapy. New York: Free Press.
Minuchin, S., Rosman, B.K., & Baker, L.
(1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia
nervosa in context. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Miyake, K., Chen, S., & Campos, J. (1985).
Infant temperament, mother’s mode of in-
teraction, and attachment in Japan: An in-
terim report (pp. 276 –297). In I. Bretherton
& E. Waters (eds.), Growing points of at-
tachment theory and research. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment 50 [Serial No. 209].
Miyake, K., & Yamazaki, K. (1995). Self-con-
scious emotions, child rearing, and child
psychopathology in Japanese culture (pp.
488 –504). In J.P. Tangney & K.W. Fischer
(eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychol-
ogy of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and
pride. New York: Guilford Press.
Miyanaga, K. (1991). The cutting edge: Emerg-
ing individualism in Japan. New Bruns-
wick: Transaction Publishers.
Mizuta, I., Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P., & Hi-
ruma, N. (1996). A cross-cultural study of
preschoolers attachment: Security in Japa-
ROTHBAUM, ROSEN, UJIIE, & UCHIDA
nese and U.S. dyads. International Journal
of Behavioral Development 19: 141–159.
Nichols, M.P., & Schwartz, R.C. (1998). Fam-
ily therapy: Concepts and methods. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Pistole, M.C. (1989). Attachment in adult ro-
mantic relationships: Style of conflict reso-
lution and relationship satisfaction. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 6: 505–
510.
Pistole, M.C. (1994). Adult attachment styles:
Some thoughts on closeness-distance strug-
gles. Family Process 33: 147–159.
Roland, A. (1989). In search of self in India and
Japan. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rothbaum, F., Morelli, G., Pott, M., & Liu-
Constant, Y. (2000). Immigrant-Chinese and
Euro-American parents’ physical closeness
with young children: Themes of family relat-
edness. Journal of Family Psychology 14:
334 –348.
Rothbaum, F., Pott, M.L., Azuma, J., Miyake,
K., & Weisz, J. (2000). The development of
close relationships in Japan and the U.S.:
Paths of symbiotic harmony and generative
tension. Child Development 71: 1121–1142.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., & Miyaki,
K. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security
in the United States and Japan. American
Psychologist 55: 1093–1104.
Sampson, E.E. (1988). The debate on individ-
ualism: Indigenous psychologies of the indi-
vidual and their role in personal and societal
functioning. American Psychologist 43: 15–22.
Satir, V., Stachowiak, J., & Taschman, H.
(1975). Helping families to change. New
York: Jason Aronson.
Scarf, M. (1995). Intimate worlds. New York:
Random House.
Sengoku, T. (1994). Koukousei to kazoku ni
kansuru syousa: Nichibei koukousei hikaku
houkakusho. [Survey on high school stu-
dents and their families: Report on compar-
isons between Japan and the US.] Tokyo:
Japan Youth Research Institute.
Shamir, H., Du Rocher-Schudlich, T., & Cum-
mings, E.M. (2001). Marital conflict, parent-
ing styles, and children’s representations of
family relationships. Parenting: Science and
Practice 1: 123–152.
Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Phillips, D.
Fam. Proc., Vol. 41, Fall, 2002
/ 349
(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychiatry 71: 899 –914.
Soumuchou, S.T.H. (1987). Nippon no kodomo
to hahaoya. [Children and mothers in Ja-
pan.] Tokyo: Okurashou Insatsu Kyoku.
Spence, J.T. (1985). Achievement American
style: The rewards and cost of individual-
ism. American Psychologist 40: 1285–1295.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986). A triangular theory of
love. Psychological Review 93: 119 –135.
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment
within family systems: An overview. Infant
Mental Health Journal 11: 218 –227.
Takahashi, K. (1990). Are the key assump-
tions of the “Strange Situation” procedure
universal? A view from Japanese research.
Human Development 33: 23–30.
Tamura, T., & Lau, A. (1992). Connectedness
versus separateness: Applicability of family
therapy to Japanese families. Family Pro-
cess 31: 319 –340.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranen-
burg, J. (1997). Intergenerational transmis-
sion of attachment: A move to the contextual
level (pp. 135–170). In L. Atkinson & K.J.
Zucker (eds.), Attachment and psychopathol-
ogy. New York: Guilford Press.
van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Sagi, A. (1999).
Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Uni-
versal and contextual dimensions (pp. 713–
734). In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Vogel, E. (1963, 1991). Japan’s new middle
class. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Vogel, S. (1996). Urban middle-class Japanese
family life, 1958 –1996: A personal and
evolving perspective (pp. 173–200). In D.
Schwalb & B. Schwalb (eds.), Japanese
childrearing: Two generations of scholar-
ship. New York: Guilford Press.
Watson, M., & Getz, K. (1990). The relation-
ship between oedipal behaviors and chil-
dren’s family role concepts. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly 36: 487–505.
Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., &
Carlson, E.A. (1999). The nature of individ-
ual differences in infant-caregiver attach-
ment (pp. 68 – 88). In J. Cassidy & P.R.
350 / FAMILY PROCESS
Shaver (eds.), Handbook of attachment: The-
ory, research, and clinical applications. New
York: Guilford Press.
Weisz, J.R., Rothbaum, F.M., & Blackburn,
T.C. (1984a). Standing out and standing in:
The psychology of control in America and
Japan. American Psychologist 39: 955–969.
Weisz, J.R., Rothbaum, F.M., & Blackburn,
T.C. (1984b). Swaping recipes for control.
American Psychologist 39: 974 –975.
White, M. (1993). The material child: Coming
of age in Japan and America. New York:
Free Press.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust
and commitment in the United States and
Japan. Motivation and Emotion 18: 129 –
166.
Manuscript received July 9, 2001; final revi-
sion submitted and accepted May 2, 2002.